Metal Reviews

If you're afraid of taking life away from poor babies, then every second you spend not having sex is killing someone. Now go have sex.

Thats fucking brutal.

This report is garbage, as sited here:

http://www.yale.edu/opa/



I no longer have an opinion. If it's not anything more than an art project with no serious implications as stated in the article originally posted then I could really care less.

attention whore

It's still in bad taste, though.

On the other hand, many of the most profound scientific discoveries throughout history were seemingly in bad taste during their time.

But this isn't a profound discovery. Its just bloody stupid. And call me old fashioned and blah, but I hate that this is what art has been reduced to, even if she really didn't do it. Attention grabbing bullshit. We need to reintroduce the patronage system so that the entire post modern art movement can die.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Postmodern art strives to not only draw praise from the viewer but also to affect them emotionally in ways other art never did even if it is negative like disgust or hate.

Modern art can be really cool. Like I said before, it's a shame that this is the only "modern art" people hear about.

probably posted these before

That's a dumb argument. Like saying, "Oh, people die, so it's okay to to kill them." >_>

Also, I'm pro-choice. Although I'm reconsidering my stance lately since I've been thinking about stuff.

I can't decide if ethical truths are universal or relative. Been thinking about this stuff a bit since I've been studying philosophy...a lot of more liberal people say that truth is relative, but if you think about it it's really a faulty concept because then you would be staying that stuff like female genital mutilation is moral because the people who do it think it is. On the other hand, it's tough to say that it's universal because then what defines what is right? God's will is too iffy because we don't know if he actually exists, and if he does then we don't really know what he thinks.

Shit's complicated.

i don't think there's anything wrong with abortion because i don't think a fetus is a person. it isn't sentient, so the only people with an emotional interest in the fetus is the mother and father, so it's their choice what to do with it (and if the two disagree, i think the mother should be the one who ultimately decides because she's the one going through pregnancy).

i'm not super knowledgeable about female circumcision, but i would say it's immoral because it's usually inflicted on someone who is too young to decide for herself if she wants it or not. if an 18 year old decides to do it i don't think there's anything wrong, but doing it to a child is bad.

I probably should've read over that post a bit more but I was in a hurry. What I meant to say was that the body sometimes decides that the body isn't capable of carrying a baby so it rejects the embryo therefore the mother should be able to decide whether she can support the baby. It still isn't a great argument but it's what I meant.


As to the relative and univeral quandary, I claim that truth is relative due to the circumstances and what is best for a person's health, happiness and future. Abortion is acceptable when the mother is unable to properly care for and raise the child in an environment suitable for their development. Female circumcision is never acceptable since in no way is a clitoris detrimental to women unless enjoying sex is a negative.

Universal truths, especially the categorical imperative, fails when it comes to minor or indecisively wrong things like lying. Sometimes lying can be considered good. Universal truths depend on what your goals are.

To clarify, I don't think abortion is something to be taken lightly but it is someone's own body. I think abortion should be seen as the last option. But also at the state the world is and at the state some people are, some people just need to not have kids at all costs, eg: mothers in South Africa and other impoverished nations and lower class television-raised, Wal-mart shopping, Nascar watching Americans.

Well, I was in ranty mood there and I definitely shouldn't have pigeonholed all of postmodern art together. Still, once again, I may be old fashioned, but art should be aesthetically pleasing in some possible way somehow, even if it makes you feel disgusted or you dislike it. Art should take some measure of talent. This sort of shit, and flipping a urinal upside down and all that other crap don't take talent, are not aesthetically pleasing, and seem to me to just be attention grabbing, quick buck making bullshit.

To apply Kant's categorical imperative:

This work of art is bad. Now lets universalize that fucker! All works of art of this type are bad. No logical contradiction! Doesn't contradict respect for persons! Awesome, Mr. Kant! I'll be sure to tell those axe murderers where their intended victim is, for lying is wrong!

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not, but yes, we have. Where do you think people learned about the herbal treatments she (supposedly, although they do exist) took? They're not nearly as effective as modern processes or pharmaceuticals (or, God help us, coat hangers), but they do work.

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, had this been real, I don't think she would have been doing anything wrong. It would have been dreadfully harmful for her, but it's her right to do with her body as she will (and when the "baby" is a fetus or even a freaking zygote, it still counts as part of her). I don't think it would have been in bad taste at all; it's the same thing as painting a picture of an abortion via chainsaw, just taken to the next level. She would even have had a precedent; the videos of her would have been sort of an inverted Stan Brakhage thing (not that I particularly care for Window Water Baby Moving, but according to my film major friends it's a significant piece of Film).

On the other hand, I hate modern art. Hate hate hate hate hate it with the passion of a thousand fiery suns. I hate minimalism, I hate Polluck, I hate anyone who calls a bit of crumpled paper "art." Off-setting that, though, is the fact that if she had actually done it, honestly, that takes some fucking guts. Abortion and miscarriages are horrible experiences, and for someone to willingly endure multiple miscarriages in a short period of time is a little mind-boggling. I don't consider crumpled paper art because a) it's been done, so there's no innovation and b) how much skill does it take to crumple paper? What she did would have been very creative, and there's no denying the effort involved.

The fact that she didn't, and it was "performance art" makes it less art in my opinion and more sociology. An interesting experiment, but an experiment, and not art.

i'm not a big fan of modern art like signing toilets (although the first guy who did that was lolz and gets mad props for being an IRL troll) or painting a canvas blue with a black line, but i like abstract art and think Pollock's paintings are cool

Sarcasm.

Damn internet. Convey my words properly.